Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 7, 2014 3:30pm-4:01pm PDT

3:30 pm
those unite to be used as short-term rentals in recent most this board of supervisors has supported self several piece of legislation for tenants that are ellis act evicted to allow people the opportunity to have a fighting chance to stay in san francisco because of that there is no justifiable reason that the unit subject to the ellis act being rented at short-term rentals we have stooped for you for our cities tenants to stay here when evicted we must preserve the character of our amazing city by making that possible for people of all protect levels not be reader by troufrt i'm proposing an amendment to prohibit short-term rentals in unit there has on ellis act evictions by
3:31 pm
where it is standing behind the principles in the need to protect our communities converting residential apartment into short-term rentals only exacerbates the housing crisis prohibiting short-term rentals in a unit for 5 years following an ellis act veeths support our long-standing policy to preserve the limited housing resources we have the amendment i'm introducing specifically says that a unit that has been subjected to a ellis act eviction within a 5 year period would not quality if the eviction occurred on november 1st, 2012, i've got copies of any amendment with respect to the unpaid taxes and
3:32 pm
with respect to the second item i'm going to ask the city attorney the best way to proceed i've suggested language what is the advise. >> city attorney and john gibner, deputy city attorney. >> so i believe at some point in the discussion probably makes sense for my colleagues merlin or myself to talk about the amendments to refer to planning are which which have them requires another hearing at the board the amendment you'll proposed supervisor avalos will not be referred back to planning i'll just supervisor breed has duplicate the file at some point during the hearing when the items come up for a vote i would just say you would have a voted on this amendment as you've circulated it in either of the
3:33 pm
duplicate files or both. >> thank you. >> thank you so supervisor campos. >> i make a motion for both. >> sure so just asking for a second on supervisor campos first amendment regarding the trinity taxes seconded 3wi supervisor avalos and permitting the shortfalls subject to the ellis act evictions a second supervisor breed supervisor chiu. >> thank you colleagues let me first start by asking are there any other amendment you i think i need to ask the deputy city attorney he has amendments. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney stepping back to supervisor campos amendment i'm sure you're aware of there's been litigation go challenging various ordinances in the city involving the ellis act so as i
3:34 pm
mentioned supervisor campos amendment will require a revel to another k34e hearing and at or before that committee hearing provided the advice regarding the issue we suggest during the last two weeks we've looked electro the ordinances that is preponderance of the evidence and worked with supervisors office particularly supervisor chiu's office and had clean up amendments we'll ask the board to adapt may be the first amendment you'll vote on supervisor chiu has a copy of the amendment but essentially they've fixed the number one issues that came up in the past amendment they clarify that hosting platforms can be liable for violations of the notice requirement in the ordinance and
3:35 pm
in the administrative hearing and one of the amendments that supervisor farrell proposed today requiring the finally the homeowners association to my unit covered by the homeowners association including the that neighborhood homeowners association. >> with that, colleagues a motion. >> i'll move the technical amendment and great supervisor wiener with that, do we need a roefrlt that was supervisor chiu. >> i was going to give me perspectives but move the technical amendment first. >> colleagues any discussion on the technical amendment perhaps you can came back take that one first. >> a roll call vote madam chair
3:36 pm
and roll call vote. >> supervisor cowen about when you say the technical amendments which author. >> the one offered by the deputy city attorney. >> we'll take that without objection. those amendments are accepted supervisor chiu. >> thank you colleagues and all serious neuronsness thank you for your good ideas let me say those are amendments i'm happy to support but i'd like to go quickly electro the amendments as i've heard them to give a few exemptions some i'm not prepared to support from my read and i'm just reading those amendments for the first time there are 8 colleagues introduced amendments supervisor breed toward is a off with technical amendments and many particular she has proposed that we include a private right
3:37 pm
of actions specifically ash any cases involving ellis act that's something i'm prepared to support and supervisor kim has offered i know that either or both will require going back to land use and trailing legislation hopefully, we'll work those out i'm happy to support what supervisor breed has suggested as well as supervisor kim is suggesting supervisor farrell has asked for an inclusion of the couple of property owners i'm happy to support supervisor yee i do understand has some challenges with the feedback that he's received from the district and neighborhood in his district i'll say i have certainly harder from many resident in district 7 in the rh1 areas there's a desire to do
3:38 pm
some level of hosting activities that's comparable to what we're doing in part of the city the idea of carving that out and essentially saying that resident in supervisor yee's is neighborhood even if under no circumstances if they go away can they engagement in short-term rentals or have a 90 day cap feels onerous to me but i understand the spirit by which supervisor yee has made that i want to thank supervisor wiener for his various amendments and in particular with the land use committee he was the first supervisor to indicate his support of the structure of what we've done and offered any p many amendments i'm happy to support his fees adjustments to make sure they've worked with
3:39 pm
the expansion of the requirement to the rh1 areas that's akin for landowner and others supervisor mar's amendments i do said and agree with the sentiment for publicly induced housing we don't want to include that in the legislation i understand from the city attorney there maybe some clean up to that is that right and supervisor mar if you want to clarifying what our asking for . >> if i could read the language after coming out u consulting with the city attorney under section d the residential unit it strikes is not subject to the inclusionary housing program so forth in section 415 but it strikes that first line and continues with at keeping in the language is not a residential
3:40 pm
hotel unit subject to the provisions of chapter 41tolysis unless they've been subject to conversion semicolon is not adding the word organization designating at a blow market rate under the city, state, or federal law and adding this language is not the rehabbed to financial evaluate to restrict low and moderate it strikes the words middle-income and the rest is included. >> thank you, supervisor ms. balboa park is there additional clarification to what supervisor mar said. >> adopting marilyn burns i'll told clarify the language is cultural drafted the language is regarding is not housing developed or rehabbed with the
3:41 pm
financial assistance with the city and county of san francisco we will definitely want further classification in committee ideally or here as to what that indicates right now i believe that includes such things as the million dollars contract and potentially open the building loans there's many types of loans and grant that falls into the description of financial assistance so we want clarification on those terms so let me try to that about this for example, prop c has the trust fund on mission as i mentioned or small site acquisition and erect types of small buildings we were considering not the broader expansion of massy or different
3:42 pm
types of earthquake preparedness type of improvements to home i'm wondering if you can recommend the language that captures the residential language and not have it as expansive as i said. >> i'd like recommend right now that we added a little bit of tightening on the occupancy it's clear it's income restrife unit that's an ongoing restriction so some in district units are not restricted for the life of the building but for a cafe time that might go further to limiting the universe of unit we're talking about i think we could provide for language in committee that helps to clarify the terms as to what
3:43 pm
you're sdrip. >> thank you dot city attorney's have more comments in terms of technical words or adjustments that need to be made that. >> not at this time we'll be happy to look at the ones that are substantive or material we'll refer back to the planning commission. >> thank you at this time i want to open up the discussion to the colleagues regarding the rest of the amendments president chiu. >> supervisor mar excluding the in-law units. >> i have a problem i'll explain the intent of our legislation was to cloud unit that are emptied with public
3:44 pm
dollars and in-law units are part of the private buildings and private units and there's been a lot of confusion i think in the public what this hastening tailed we've heard from the members of the public i have a housing unit as well as an in this i want to that rent out any in this year round first of all, if the in this is not legal you'll not been able to get the ability to registering to be a host if it is legal you would need to have a permanent resident living in the that in-law unit incorporated it's not enough to simply live in the main unit and use the in-law unit as a place in the how did you need two separate unit to
3:45 pm
apply for the registration and we should permit the in this to engagement i have a personal issue that for a lot of middle-class households they'll have the success access to gave me but to some of the 1r50ub8 san franciscans that don't receive public induces if their traveling for working or otherwise want to rent out their space as others can so i'm not preempted to support the in-laws so with regard to supervisor kim's language let me say a few things i appreciate that supervisor kim i understand there were numerous conversations to tighten up one way or another what you're talking about i want to say i want to mention the suggestion
3:46 pm
there's been zero enforcement by the city is not true the department sent out many, many doss of letters, in fact, members of the audience that have received those there's been enforcement happened that being said supervisor kim proposal as a fairly limited private right of of action is something that makes sense in conjunction with the ellis act i'm hoping a way to come together supervisor avalos i appreciate the hosted caps the idea to have limits if you're living in this i'm not prepared to support our amendment because we've heard from hundreds of resident and those tend to be seniors any time their windowors or empty
3:47 pm
nesteders that told his we have quite a bit here in the audience who have told you that they live in their unit year round but if there was a significant cap on the activity they'll literally need to move out of san francisco not been able to afford to live here i'm not prepared to move forward but to monitor this this is an area that our planning department and staff will look at the tweaks but at this point not a clean way to look at hosted versus non-hosted because of that i'm not prepared to support that with regards to supervisor campos amendment with regards to the ellis act amendment i've just received i think what supervisor breed has an approach to deal with the ellis act is
3:48 pm
the cleanest way of assuring that we have shutting down the practice of landlords ellis acting the buildings or if you gave me in that practice people can run to court to stop you i think that makes sense i'm going to support supervisor breed's approach but happy to hear more and the final question around taxes i know that has been about i want to clarify a few miss statements our legislation did not exempt anyone if paying takes back or forward taxes i was the first support to support our treasurer in saying we know that anyone that engages in those activities hosts are spotted to be paying taxes that was opined by our city treasurer
3:49 pm
a few years ago i was or building i was the first official in san francisco so is that activity folks need to pay their full share of takes i'm going to turn it over to they're there has been legal issues whether or not officially hosting the city council as grappled with until we move this legislation no hosting platform had facilitated the tax final around move forward forward to set up a system to collect and provide the taxes of their hosts to our city that's a substantial step there that will result in 12 to $15 million a year i want to be clear there's nothing in the legislation it eliminates illegal back taxed that's an issue between the private
3:50 pm
taxpayers many of who have been paying their tax and that is between the controller's office office and i'll not be supporting supervisor campos amendment on this issue i certainly appreciate the sent 7, 8, 9 with that, colleagues, i thank you for your pains and weighing through 0 those thorn i didn't issue. >> thank you it match my list so with that, i want to open up the floor for any further discussion. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madam chair so i have some comments and also some questions first with respect to supervisor campos amendment around whether or not
3:51 pm
back taxes are owed i guess first of all, thank you supervisor campos for recognizing my offices work around public transportation funding and making it easier for small homeowners to rent out their partiallys in their homes i appreciate that but regarding the tax my understanding i want to reiterate what president chiu said mapped is that the city and county of san francisco can initiate enforcement relating to tax from the past few years today whether there are an audit or an administrative native process a lawsuit that has been within the city's ability to do two years ago when the tax collector it was available 12 and six months ago
3:52 pm
yesterday today and tomorrow the tax collector does need authorization from this board firefighting if it's appropriate to see tax from the past few years from airbnb the original hosts i don't want to speculate as to what is happening or the dignities is made to do or not do that there are serious legal issues for example, in your long-term litigates with e peed and maybe the city will have to sue individual homeowners to collect the back tax this is a legal issue that exists what this amendment side is to say despite the city has the power to file the lawsuit and whatever reason has not filed the lawsuit we'reing to tell homeowners
3:53 pm
we're going to stop you from engaging in short-term rentals until that litigates is solved whether 10 years or more we're going to keep i illegal and in the shadows until that litigates with airbnb are with the tenants or the retires lady with the home until whoefr it is that the city is spotted to be suing you can't do this whether you need to make our mortgage or send our kids to college, in fact, it is going to be illegal for i to do any short-term rentals until that legislation works its way up and down the court system for reinforces and year we're actually seeing we're not going to be collecting hotel tax so if it takes 5 reinforces we lose no back taxes and lost 5 years of
3:54 pm
$11 million that's million dollars or we win and get the $25 million in back tax and still losses the 5 years worth of hotel tax to delay bring this existing practice in our city that many people rely on bring it out of the shadows into the sunlight and regulating it and making sure it is not being abused to make that contingent on whether or not the city is going to pursue the litigation around back tax it is cutting off our notice to despite our face i'll not be supporting that amendment i want to move on to supervisor mar's amendment around in-law unit i want to make sure i understand so a question through the chair supervisor mar is it
3:55 pm
the the president around in-law units that if let's say if you have an illegals in-law unit whether a tenant or owner we know that many in-law units an owner lives there because they can't get up the steps and you have an in-law unit your living in either a tenant or owner and let's say you're living there 3 hundred and 65 days a year not for one night gave me in a short-term rental is that what this amendment provides. >> the intent we insure had in-law units are not left vacant or eyed for short-term rentals i'm sensing in you're living in the unit and want to participate
3:56 pm
that's okay with short-term rentals but not to allow the housing unit duo to be use for short-term use. >> maybe i misunderstand i don't know if i have in terms of was it actually says my reading of that says if it's an in-law unit it is not it can't have short-term rentals there because i'm in one hundred percent agreement no unit whether a single-family home or a between should she or he should be a shvrl we'll have consensus that we don't want to have this hotel listing if that's a word of our housing stock but the way i read this correct me if i am wrong this will completely make it blanket illegal to do any short-term rentals even if you're living there and the consequences of allowing the
3:57 pm
loophole that allows the homeowners with a in-law unit to leave it vacant for short term tourist rentals that is dangerous because of our housing crisis and i don't know if this may be should be redraft or was it seem like it goes beyond that and thank you supervisor mar and then through the well in terms of supervisor kim's amendment i have some questions about that i understand this was not drafted that i the city attorney's office but the city attorney has a copy of supervisor kim's amendment i do have some questions about that so this amendment would allow a wide array of nonprofits that have existed for 5 years to file lawsuits for ungymnastic relief
3:58 pm
and attorney's fees against any unit that is rent control where they believe there's been a violation of the short-term rentals ordinance and the planning department has infected within thirty or 45 days; is that correct. >> deputy city attorney marrying listen through the chair under the existing administrative code interested party does include nonprofits that have as part of their bylaws an interest in housing those interested parties currently can file a lawsuit for unscombrung u junk active relief but through the city administration so they have to file a complaint with the department right now the department of building inspection with the property amendment the planning department they'll have to have
3:59 pm
the director substantiate that complaint hold a public hearing and found a violation after that has occurred any interested party can file a lawsuit and get monetary relief under the proposed amendments the city will be able to the first amendment the city can file an injunction at any time and the procedure for the interested party depending on the interested party if not a housing nonprofit then the interested party has to go through the entire administrative process a complaint with the director and hearing and determination by the director that a violation has occurred pursue the proposed
4:00 pm
amendment from supervisor kim then states if it's a nonprofit housing interested party that has also been in existence for 5 years from the operative date of the legislation they can susan sue an owner or enlist entity with a rent control building with 3 or more units with in 45 days of filing the complaint i read this to indicate regardless of whether or not the planning department has decided to move forward with an physique active they have to file a notice to the city attorney's office but they could do that this mroeptd amendment changes the penalties provision it will indicate that only the city attorney the city rather could receive the civil up to the present time for one thousand tailors and day for violation and


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on